Hacker News Reader

Agreed completely about how awful dynamic languages can be in this respect. I've found what helps a lot is consistent naming of parameters. For example, numberOfWidgets (an integer) versus widgets (a collection) or file (a file handle) versus path (a string).

View on HN

Sure, consistent naming helps a lot (though I'm partial to short-yet-readable alternative like widgetCounts). Sadly, sometimes ambiguity is unavoidable. And other times, you're just dealing with bad code.

But consistent naming does not help with the "optionality" of parameters.

In that sense, dynamic languages often have a jump on their functional counterparts. Relying on the type annotations for all documentation is probably the other side of the coin. I understand that generic combinators sometimes need sufficiently general argument names, but even then, there's often some semantic meaning that can be attached with a self-documenting variable name. Enough with the 1- and 2-letter variable names!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com